The man: (Maayan) That's as of 2013, yes.
The wife's counsel: [Excellent]. Since when is this not true? ... Let me spare you, show me a document that shows that you have ceased to be in control at some point.
The man: I don't have a document, but I ceased to be a controlling shareholder in Oklahoma in 2014 or 2015 when they asked me not to have it because of the U.S.KYC In the banks, it has changed.
The wife's counsel: I didn't understand anything, who was it - they?
The man: They are the bank. Oklahoma is a company that is shares in this company. bearer shares The holder of the share certificate is the account holder. The reason I had this account was because I couldn't open an account in my name, but when thecompliance He basically said - listen, it's actually you, close it or you won't be in control anymore, I had no choice and there really was no more contact,
The wife's counsel: And who was the controlling shareholder in Oklahoma, according to you?
The man: I answered you before the break, I can answer the same question again.
The wife's counsel: No, I asked her about Nebraska before the break?
The man: No, not true. You asked me about Oklahoma and I said about..., so please don't, wrong, you asked me and I answered you.
The wife's counsel: Do you have any document that confirms something of what you just said?
The man: What I have I have submitted" (See transcript of November 24, 2020, pp. 920, 20-26 and 921, 1-23).
- In order to show that this is not an isolated and exceptional case, I will also cite below the example of a Nebraska company, another subsidiary of the Arizona trust. Regarding this company, the man stated in his statement of defense that he was solely an investment advisor of the company and had never had a controlling shareholder or position in it. In his testimony before me, the man was confronted with an FBAR form submitted on his behalf in 2007 to the US tax authorities, where he stated that he was a controlling shareholder of the Nebraska company. Here, the man went on to claim that it was another company called Duma, without presenting any reference in the matter. My impression from his testimony in this line of investigation (as can be said about most of the man's testimony) is that the man behaves as if he were a magician from the land of Oz with smoke and mirrors in his possession, through which he seeks to protest and eliminate anything that does not benefit his version. Thus, he was asked and answered:
"The wife's counsel: Let's move on to the Nebraska company for a moment. I'm telling you that you're a controlling shareholder in a Nebraska company, right? Were you a controlling shareholder in a Nebraska company?